BF2S Forums You be the judge! Trayvon Martin vs George Zimmerman

do you have any idea how many ethnicities make up pakistan? there are at least 6 different ethnicities. calling someone a ‘pakistani’ is like saying someone is ethnically ‘british’: pretty well meaningless so far as genetics go.

but good job. clearly we are dealing with an extremely
qualified geneticist here.

you still haven’t answered how muslims are a big scary risk factor for rape, based on your ‘it’s innate’ argument, when, erm … it’s a religion. could it possibly be that other factors, such as culture and community, contribute more to crime …? wowsers! god knows how in your head you think someone can be ‘born’ a muslim and ‘born’ a rapist.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-11 16:00:03)

no it's not 'clearly' a mix of factors. so far you have offered absolutely zero substantive evidence that rape is genetically coded.

why is it so hard for you to produce some actual science or research from your weird corner? mugshots are not 'evidence'.

sorry, but research into the circumstances and factors affecting rape victims is not 'victim blaming'. that's your own projection there, because you seem to think anyone who takes drugs is crossing some sort of moral rubicon.

Apparently remembering a different version of events is now racism.

Speaking on a video call from Australia's Gold Coast, where he is based for England's pre-Ashes training camp, Root made it clear he had not witnessed any acts of racism.

"Not that I can recall, no," Root said. "I think when I look back now, I can't. I can only speak from my personal experiences. But it is clear things have happened at the club and we have to make sure we eradicate it."

Rafiq posted a tweet hours after Root's statement and comments.

"Disappointed is not even the feeling," he wrote, without referring to Root. "Incredibly Hurt.

"But uncomfortable truths are hard to accept it seems."

https://wwos.nine.com.au/cricket/joe-ro … sm-crisis/

Shame on you Joe Root, correct your memory.

OK, find me an example, the only one I could find the Home Office kept secret.

Er no it isn't, the Home Office conducted research into the ethnic background of rapists, then decided not to publish it, then published an edited version a year later with the data fudged and nonsensical conclusions, evidence of any ethnic over-representation dismissed at every turn.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u … _Paper.pdf
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the … bfuscation

oh right, yes of course, science is both the disinterested and objective pursuit of truth, but also an ideological front for woke antifa LGBTQ+ fanatics. 'howled down by people like me', i mean, that's just fucking hilarious ... people like me? you mean actual editors of academic research who publish the stuff? oh, yes, people like me ... who block scientific research with our ideological biases. you honestly can't make this shit up. i'm a professional editor, dipshit! i help to keep several leading journals in operation – pretty well the opposite of shouting down and blocking stuff, i'd say.

do you have any idea how many people on the right-wing would love to conclusively find that immigrants are terrible for the health of their society? right-wing billionaires/millionaires like the koch bro(s) already have about 30 thinktanks and research foundations set-up with their infinite largesse, publishing research and policy papers on every hot-button topic that suits their vested interests. do you really think if it was easy to deduce, once and for all, by scientific reasoning that immigrants were genetically more dangerous ... that it wouldn't have been published?

besides, we live in an era of open access publishing, self-publishing, internet pre-press servers, etc. a scientist or research group don't need the imprimatur and backing of a huge and official institution to go ahead and publish their findings anymore. so please stop trying to misrepresent the picture – it's really incredibly dishonest of you. if there was ample and available evidence that brown/black people really were innately more disposed to violence and rape, then, trust me, the results would be out there.

in fact, you're so dishonest and distort the picture so much on this topic that it's almost risible. notable fringe groups of scientists on the racist-eugenicist right had been convening meetings and symposia at august institutions like UCL for years before anyone even took much notice or exception to it. this, mind you, literally decades after the entire field of eugenics had been disproven as unscientific, ideology-led tosh: no amount of research or experiment in eugenics ever delivered any positive results. and yet the cranks still had their little white supremacist meetings at one of the best research universities in the world. go figure.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/jan/ucl … y-eugenics
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 … -on-campus

Er no it isn't, the Home Office conducted research into the ethnic background of rapists

how are you not getting this? yes, the government conducted research to investigate the demographics and ethnicity of criminals prosecuted by the justice system. that doesn't look at causes, you fucking idiot. there is nothing in their report to suggest a genetic basis for their crime rates. nobody actually disputes that some ethnicities are over-represented in the US and UK's crime stats, for e.g.; i mean it would be pretty hard to deny the statistical picture. but the story was buried because of its potential implications for bad headlines and social unrest, rather than because 'oh boy, we just came across a great scientific discovery ... turns out muslims rape because they're born that way.' JFC.

you can't produce scientific papers and seemingly don't understand what a scientific study even is. (the spectator is an openly ideological right-wing mouthpiece, so you can stop accusing me of being 'blinded by ideology' and 'ignoring what doesn't fit my world picture', too, whilst you're at it.) the fact you criticized me above for linking a study with a 'narrow focus' says a lot. do you ever read scientific journals or understand the scope of most scientific studies? you are taking summary crime-rate statistics as de facto proofs that ethnicity causes crime, committing about 3 logical fallacies in the process. are you really this dumb, or are you just serially dishonest?

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-11 22:43:31)

Apparently the UK govt does not track offenders ethnicity, whereas it does track victims ethnicity

We publish statistics from two main sources: The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) and police recorded crime, both of which focus mainly on the victims of crime and do not cover data on convictions or on characteristics of offenders. Therefore, we are unable to provide an ethnic breakdown of those convicted of rape, or any further information around convictions of crime.

We do, however, publish a small amount of data on the ethnicity of victims of rape. This can be found in our ‘Sexual Offences in England and Wales: year ending March 2017’ article. Appendix table 10 (link below) published alongside this article, shows an ethnic breakdown for both male and female victims of rape or assault by penetration (including attempts).

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar … dethnicity

How curious, why is there so much interest in ethnicity of victims but not perpetrators?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Apparently the UK govt does not track offenders ethnicity, whereas it does track victims ethnicity

We publish statistics from two main sources: The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) and police recorded crime, both of which focus mainly on the victims of crime and do not cover data on convictions or on characteristics of offenders. Therefore, we are unable to provide an ethnic breakdown of those convicted of rape, or any further information around convictions of crime.

We do, however, publish a small amount of data on the ethnicity of victims of rape. This can be found in our ‘Sexual Offences in England and Wales: year ending March 2017’ article. Appendix table 10 (link below) published alongside this article, shows an ethnic breakdown for both male and female victims of rape or assault by penetration (including attempts).

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar … dethnicity

How curious, why is there so much interest in ethnicity of victims but not perpetrators?

most european countries don't track ethnicity in such statistics, germany included (perhaps for obvious historical reasons).

want to know why? because decades of research in the 20th century produced no genetic link between ethnicity and crime, or any narrowly deterministic behaviour, for that matter. researchers chased their own tails trying to prove theories of 'racial intelligence' conclusively in the same period and got pretty much nowhere. all we have are the same tired, rehashed arguments about the IQ score and its methodological bonuses/drawbacks.

it's unbelievable. i mean, my guy, science was literally racist as fuck for centuries and regarded non-whites as literally subhuman. so much research was done on them as if they were objects or animals. you would have thought that some of those findings would have stuck if they were good science. instead governments don't bother tracking ethnicity anymore because it is literally a useless concept.

'race' has very little scientific utility. it is a diffuse and vague concept. at best, it can be used descriptively (or self-descriptively) for people to declare their 'way of life', their background, their culture. you couldn't find a 'pakistani' genetic profile, because it's a de jure nation composed of about 9 major ethnicities and 20 minor ones. good luck swimming through all of that conceptual murkiness to light upon a useful definition of the 'pakistani race', chap.

it's amazing to me that you're the self-styled 'man of science' and prize yourself on being a rational individual, and yet you just get schooled, time and time again, on the basic premises of what science even is. you seem to want to invoke 'genetics' as proof of your 'scientific racism', but science deserted that arena and stopped making claims about race in, like, the 1950s, when they realized it was a dead end and produced no meaningful results. eugenics is dead and yet you still talk as whites are genetically superior to blacks. you're a relic, and an ignorant one at that. poor show.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-11 23:09:38)

dilbert there are literally entire journals dedicated to the sociology of crime ... an entire discipline of criminology ... all of them full of research on the causes of crime. there's not exactly a lack of convincing studies or data on this topic.

Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice
https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wecj20/current

are you really this ignorant? you think i can't find a paper talking about black crime rates or the causes of their relativity high crime rates? this is not exactly 'beyond the pale' of normal, everyday research, dumkopf. people are making their careers studying just this.

here is a report from the australian institute of criminology which analyses the causes of crime with respect to ethnicity/ethnic disparities.
https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/fi … ndi117.pdf

from the introduction:

Five major publications (Baumgartl & Favell 1995; Hawkins 1995; Marshall 1997; Short 1997; Tonry 1997) includ-ing original research from over 30 countries of Europe, North America and Australia have been released recently on the subject of immigration/ethnicity/race and crime. They revealed that:

• Race/ethnicity/country of origin has less to do with crime than the environment and the disorganised communities of alleged criminals.
• Particularly in Europe, lack of knowledge of the local language is considered to be a major disadvantage faced by migrant groups.
• Migrants generally have lower levels of education and a very low rate of participation in higher education, which limits their life chances.
• Migrants generally concentrate around poorer and disadvantaged city neighbourhoods.
• Migrants’ unemployment rate is significantly higher than that of the native-born.
• There is evidence of some bias against minority groups in their contacts with the criminal justice system. For example, in decisions such as caution or prosecution, social background factors, particularly family stability, play a very important role. Suspects from minority groups often come from “unstable” families, making a caution decision difficult. This situation can influence decisions at subsequent stages of the criminal justice system.

have at it chap. on that last point ... didn't i highlight the reverse disparity in caution rates between whites and blacks in the UK justice system? amazing. i should really get an honorary doctorate in this stuff.

here's an interesting paper from a psychology journal – definitely relevant in your basket-case study. 'the numbers don't speak for themselves', i mean could you find a more tailor-made title for what i've been saying to you over the last fucking two pages? all you do is point at the numbers and claim they speak for themselves!

The Numbers Don’t Speak for Themselves: Racial Disparities and the Persistence of Inequality in the Criminal Justice System
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 … 1418763931

Many scholars and activists assume the public would be motivated to fight inequality if only they knew the full extent of existing disparities. Ironically, exposure to extreme disparities can cause people to become more, not less, supportive of the very policies that create those disparities (Hetey & Eberhardt, 2014). Here, we focus on the criminal justice system—policing and incarceration in particular. We argue that bringing to mind racial disparities in this domain can trigger fear and stereotypic associations linking Blacks with crime. Therefore, rather than extending an invitation to reexamine the criminal justice system, the statistics about disparities may instead provide an opportunity to justify and rationalize the disparities found within that system. With the goals of spurring future research and mitigating this paradoxical and unintended effect, we propose three potential strategies for more effectively presenting information about racial disparities: (a) offer context, (b) challenge associations, and (c) highlight institutions.

wowsers, look, it's three people with PhDs in this subject outlining the exact same thing i've been patiently holding your hands through.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-11 23:56:28)

applauding soldiers in an active court session. not fascist in the slightest.

The judge is 76 years old. He should be retired but he is instead sitting on the bench presiding over a shit show trial. I doubt there will be rioting over the K.R. trial but lord can you imagine if there is.

KR jury deliberations are ongoing. They asked for copies of the videos to review them. Probably not a good sign for acquittal if they are taking the time to review y videos. The online right wingers are angry they didn't get an instant acquittal the first day. They are now hoping for a mistrial with prejudice in order to get Kyle off totally. I don't think the judge is that crazy though.